Yesterday, The Huffington Post featured a post authored by Holly Lohuis of the Ocean Futures Society (OFS), who claimed she was “duped” into joining the Coalition for Chemical Safety. I responded to Ms. Lohuis’ post directly and would like to post my response in this space as well.
As Executive Director of the Coalition for Chemical Safety, I applaud Holly Lohuis for her commitment to our environment and for highlighting the fight to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. I do want to take issue with her critique however.
CCS is very clear on its website about its principles. The Coalition for Chemical Safety is for a comprehensive yet balanced reform of our nation’s chemical safety laws.
We believe the law should be such that protecting public safety is its top priority. The EPA should have the power to determine chemical safety and restrict chemicals that are deemed not safe for use as intended.
It also means, however, that the law should promote the kind of chemical innovation that leads to better solar cells (powered by chemically based films), electric cars (powered by chemically based batteries), more powerful microchips (etched by chemical compounds) and so much more that makes America a technology leader. It should also promote the American jobs those chemical innovations provide, rather than sending them overseas.
The Coalition for Chemical Safety is also very clear on who its members are – ranging from large trade associations (yes, including the American Chemistry Council) to small businesses and individuals across the country. They’re all listed on our website. No one is duped.
If Holly Lohuis is fighting for a law that protects public safety while preserving American innovation and supporting American jobs, she may not be a CCS member but she shares our goals.
Furthermore, Ms. Lohuis’ post was picked up by Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund on his blog, and I took the opportunity to respond on his post as well to clarify a few things.
The Coalition for Chemical Safety did not approach OFS to join. In fact, OFS approached the Coalition and signed up as a member via our website. As is often our practice, a representative of the Coalition contacted OFS and very clearly stated who we were, who our members were and what we were about.
After hearing us out, OFS opted to withdraw its membership.
In other words, the Coalition was open and transparent and lost a member for it, and that is fine with us. That in no way comports with my definition of someone who was “duped.” In fact, it is quite the opposite.
What this kind of soap opera has to do with the urgent business of reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, I do not know. If you agree that reform is needed, and you agree that it must protect public safety, promote American innovation and preserve American jobs, then you agree with the Coalition – irrespective of what group you choose to join.
The Virginia Coalition for Chemical Safety posted a video on YouTube featuring Coalition supporters in Virginia who favor reforming current Toxic Substances Control Act regulations in a way that leads to greater innovation, safety and job growth in the United States. The video features:
John Paul Woodley, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia for Government Operation.
Courtney Kuester, a mother who discusses the importance of having safe chemicals in the home
Paul Repak, Certified Safety Professional, DuPont Spurance Plant, discusses the Toxic Substances Control Act from the standpoint of the chemical industry.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg held a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health today regarding chemical safety reform. CCS would like to commend Sen. Lautenberg for hearing from a diversity of players in the debate over reform of our nation’s chemical safety laws. It is widely believed this third such hearing is the final one to be held before introduction of new legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act provides the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical regulatory framework, while allowing manufacturers to keep many of their chemicals secret. Only a few years ago, most industry leaders maintained that TSCA was working fine. But lately, shifts in the political climate have convinced some people that change is inevitable, and they want to ensure their interests are represented.
“On both ends of the spectrum, from the environmental side to the proponents for the industrial side, there is a general agreement that [current law] is not up to snuff,” says Joe Householder, head of the Coalition for Chemical Safety, a business-backed group pushing for TSCA reform.
Manufacturers want to protect their trade secrets for obvious reasons, and say only “confidential business information” is kept from the public. Only a few EPA officials are privy to the details of many chemicals, and they’re not allowed to share that information with state regulators or even with many other officials in their own agency, critics say. In 2005, the EPA’s top expert on flame retardants reportedly said the contents of a retardant she was researching were kept secret even from her. Even some people in the industry who say TSCA works well concede that a growing slice of the public feels they’re being kept in the dark.
“If you’re just patted on the head and told, ‘Have faith, everything’s taken care of, but we just can’t tell you about it,’ you’re not going to have much confidence in the system,” Householder says.
You can scour the CCS website in great detail and while you will find the information you need about the latest in the pursuit of TSCA reform, you won’t find arguments about specific chemicals. Raging today are debates over the future of a number of chemicals. Some state legislatures are considering bans of specific chemical products and activists on both sides are spending gobs of dollars assailing or defending them.
We’re not going there.
It is our view that TSCA reform done right will address those product specific concerns. A law that properly prioritizes chemicals that concern the general public, scientists and the regulatory community and then sets out the proper protocol for testing them to see if they are safe to use as intended with an EPA that has the resources and authority to act gets to every chemical that is now a hot button public policy issue.
We do have members with strong opinions about specific chemicals and we respect those opinions. However, CCS is going to focus its advocacy on the quest for comprehensive reform.
There’s a practical political point to this. Becoming mired in product specific fights draws down resources that could be better spent on what the country really needs – a better law that governs all chemicals and not just one.
Jason Schmidt of Helena, Montana — and a member of the Montana Coalition for Chemical Safety — has a strong piece in his local paper on the need for TSCA Reform built on the three-legged stool of safety, innovation and jobs.
While many people across the country are making a similar case, the fact that Jason owns a business called Phanes Solar and Renewables is, in itself, a strong argument for getting it right. TSCA reform won’t just impact chemical companies, chemical workers and chemical consumers. It will hit just about every modern business that’s out there. Solar energy, electric cars, semiconductors, you name it. Chemicals are a big part of all of them so folks like Jason need to be heard. Read his op-ed in the Billings Gazette here.
Here are a few words of wisdom regarding chemical safety regulatory reform, CCS, and more from CCS members throughout the U.S.
Indiana:
“In this day and age, chemical safety is of utmost importance concerning the way in which they are being used and distributed. By updating the TSCA, we are committing resources to ensuring that these chemicals are used properly.”
–Joe Stafford, Executive Vice President, Correlated Products, Inc.
Louisiana:
“The issue with regulating chemicals in the construction industry is that we have to trust the manufacturers of the products we use to be in accordance with the law. In turn, if the laws are too stringent on the manufacturers, it will drive the cost up as well. We do not need to hurt the construction industry anymore with today’s already sluggish economy. That’s why we need balanced reform of TSCA.”
–Todd Slavant, Owner, Richard Todd Slavant Construction
Montana:
“Thousands of Montana small businesses use some sort of chemicals every day. They wouldn’t be in business if they didn’t know those products were safe, consistent in their makeup, and had relatively stable prices. The goal of chemical safety reform is to ensure we maximize our ability to protect health and the environment, and to maintain the consistency that business depends on.”
–Matt Cavanaugh, Owner, Five Valley’s Restoration and Cleaning
Virginia:
“The Virginia State Police Association (VSPA) joined the Virginia Coalition for Chemical Safety to help ensure that our troopers have access to the very best safety equipment available. This life-saving equipment depends heavily on advanced chemical engineering. We must work together to ensure that our chemical safety laws protect the public health and promote the sorts of innovation that will yield the next generation of safety equipment”
–Wayne Huggins, Executive Director, Virginia State Police Association
Dr. Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and one of the most vocal activists on TSCA reform, takes issue with the Coalition. In the interest of keeping you fully informed, here is his post on the EDF blog.
I responded directly to Richard on his blog, but wanted to post my response here as well, which addressed Richard’s concerns about our member list:
Actually, let’s clear up an error in fact. Agrichemicals that are synthesized are covered by TSCA. Natural fertilizers are not. Pesticides are covered under FIFRA, but the intermediaries used to make them are covered by TSCA. In other words, there is a clear Agribusiness interest in this issue.
But, if it was your intention to tell folks in agribusiness that they should just keep their mouths shut while the professionals handle this – that, in my view, is not a winning approach.
It is the view of the Coalition for Chemical Safety that if you want TSCA reform that puts safety first but also promotes American innovation (such as in the development of those safe new chemicals you mentioned) and protects American jobs then you are welcome to join us. If you think that’s a wrongheaded approach, then please don’t. (something we address here: http://blog.coalitionforchemsafety.com/2010/02/who-is-ccs/)
As the drive to reform the nation’s chemical safety laws begins to pick up steam, we at the Coalition for Chemical Safety are committed to sharing information with our members and advocates at every step; the goal of the CCS blog is to provide another means of staying informed about this crucial issue.
With a number of organizations taking the stand that now is the time to revamp, reform or replace our country’s antiquated system for regulating chemical safety, the time has arrived to possibly get something done. That doesn’t mean everybody agrees on how best to proceed, and at this blog we’ll highlight some of those disagreements as a means of enlightening you.
For us, the prism through which we will view all of the chemical safety reform proposals on the table will not change. Proposals that would protect public safety, promote American chemical innovation and preserve American jobs will get our support. A failure to meet that three-pronged test is a failure to meet our approval.
The Coalition for Chemical Safety and its members across the country look forward to lending our voices to this important debate, and we look forward to you joining us, so come back often and click here to find out how to become a member and get involved today!
